Negative probabilities are naturally found in the Wigner function (both the original one and its discrete variants), the Klein paradox (where it is an artifact of using a one-particle theory) and the Klein-Gordon equation.

The question is if there is a general treatment of quasi-probability distributions, besides naively using 'legit' probabilistic formulas? For example, is there a theory saying which measurements are allowed, so to screen negative probabilities?

Additionally, is there an intuition behind negative probabilities? (Providing other examples than ones mentioned in the question can illuminate the issue.)

Feynman introduced ghosts as "negative probability" in pertubative gauge theories. The main purpose of the ghosts is to cancel the contributions from unphysical polatisations of gauge fields in loops. After Faddeev-Popov we understand them in a different way, but the original idea was just that: "negative probability".
–
José Figueroa-O'FarrillOct 11 '11 at 13:46

@Vladimir: Sure, but negative norm implies negative probability. Feynman actually introduced them in the context of gravity and he introduced them by hand to "soak up excess probability" in his own words, I believe.
–
José Figueroa-O'FarrillOct 11 '11 at 14:57

1

@Dimension10 hm, I proably thought it is similar enough to the questions I have seen on TP.SE, where Poitr Migdal used to be active too. To me it looks rather high level ... Do you think it is not?
–
DilatonJul 18 '13 at 18:42

2

@Dilaton: I won't remove the tag for now, guess it's just on the border (between research-level and other stuff) . .
–
Dimensio1n0Jul 18 '13 at 19:19

11 Answers
11

One never obtains "negative probability" densities when one discusses single observables. One obtains "negative probability" densities only when one discusses joint distributions of incompatible observables, for which the commutator is non-zero (because they take negative values, they are not probability densities). So, to avoid negative probability densities entirely, only discuss joint probability densities of compatible observables.

There are some states in which some pairs of incompatible observables nonetheless result in positive-valued distributions. The best-known examples are coherent states, for which the Wigner function is positive-definite. This, however, does not extend to all possible observables, so that in a coherent state not all pairs of incompatible observables result in positive-definite joint probability densities.

The failure of joint probabilities to exist for all states means that even though positive-definite densities may exist for particular observables in particular states, it is generally taken to be too much to call any positive-definite joint density that might happen in a special class of states to be a probability density just because it is positive-definite.

There is one quite general way to construct an object that is always positive-definite from a Wigner function, which is by averaging it over a large enough region of phase space. Many attempts to do this in a mathematically general way have been constructed over the years. I personally like Paul Busch's approach (with various co-workers), whose web-site lists two monographs that do this quite nicely:

I'm certain that other people have other preferences, however. For some, this is a way to reconcile quantum with classical, for others it is not.

There is a quick and dirty way of seeing the relationship between incompatibility and positive-definiteness of putatively positive joint probability densities, which can be found in a paper by Leon Cohen, "Rules of Probability in Quantum Mechanics", Foundations of Physics 18, 983(1988). I trot this out quite regularly, even though it's rarely cited in the literature because it's not very nice mathematics, because it's such elementary mathematics and it influenced my understanding of QM a lot a long time ago (I cited it here, for example, for a not very related Question).

Great answer. The description of incompatible measurement in terms of negative probabilities renders profound insights into the Bell inequalities. Recently I have dedicated a blog post to this: science20.com/hammock_physicist/… . Main objective was to render the strangeness of quantum mechanics accessible to lay persons. Those interested in an intuitive description of the strange behaviors of entangled systems might like it.
–
JohannesDec 15 '12 at 13:55

As Ernesto pointed out in his comment, I've answered your first question here (which was updated on the arXiv and published very recently.

As for the question about the intuition behind negative probabilities, here is my warning if you don't already have tenure: don't go there. As Feynman pointed out (and Dirac much earlier) negative probabilities are a means to an end. What end? Well, regular probability, of course.

It relates a generalisation of the Wigner function to a generalisation of non-contextual hidden variable theories. It shows that even structure at the more black-box, operational level results in quasi-probability distributions.

Some recent articles by Chris Ferrie et al. prove the necessity of either negative probabilities or a deformed probability calculus, check out: arxiv.org/abs/0711.2658 and arxiv.org/abs/1010.2701 . If I may point to a paper of mine, demanding positivity from a particular definition of discrete Wigner function (due to Wootters) results in states and operations which are easy to simulate classically: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506222
–
ErnestoOct 11 '11 at 18:12

As a collector of Feynman works, thanks. I had never even heard of your first reference, which sounds fascinating (Feynman on Bohm?? Intriguing.)
–
Terry BollingerMar 30 '12 at 17:42

Feynman wrote in this essay: "Trying to think of negative probabilities gave me a cultural shock at first, but when I finally got easy with the concept I wrote myself a note so I wouldn't forget my thoughts."
–
Alex 'qubeat'Apr 4 '12 at 20:22

Alex, thanks. I found a nearly-complete piece of it in an online book sample. Very Feynman in style, with a clearly stated anchor point around which he builds his analysis. And since this just a note, maybe I can get away with a for-dicussion-only observation on @PiotrMigdal's original question?: The simplest self-consistent way to enable negative probabilities is let them represent negative mass-energy states that erase rather than annihilate the positive mass-energy states. Lots of issues, but also lots of fun. Wave packets e.g. become dissolving clouds of +/- pairs with a slight + excess.
–
Terry BollingerApr 5 '12 at 3:07

As Morgan pointed out, extended probabilities, which is the technical name, means joint probability distributions may have negative probabilities, but marginal probabilities never. But this is a stretch. How can it be a joint probability distribution if we can never measure complementary observables simultaneously?

Extended probabilities also means we can have huge cancellations between positive and negative contributions, each on their own adding up to far more than one in absolute value but their difference lies between 0 and 1. An example would be a diffraction grating for the Wigner distribution. Such sensitivity does not arise if all probability contributions are nonnegative.

Negative probabilities are only possible if they are invisible. They can only be associated with joint measurements. However, we must actually forbid joint measurements. This is only possible with the additional property of measurement disturbance aka Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as properly understood. If we measure a marginal value, the very act of measurement must unavoidably change the other marginal distribution. Now, negative probabilities are no longer so clearcut because the measuring apparatus must also be taken into account, and its interaction with the system. In plain old quantum mechanics, the mechanism is entanglement. What is the corresponding analog with negative probabilities?

The problem with negative probabilities is, say the prob of A is x and that of B is -x. Assume A and B are mutually exclusive. Prob of A or B is zero, which means A or B outcome will never happen? But A by itself can happen? You see the problem?

"As for the question about the intuition behind negative probabilities, here is my warning if you don't already have tenure: don't go there. As Feynman pointed out (and Dirac much earlier) negative probabilities are a means to an end. What end? Well, regular probability, of course."

Take the case of Quantum Tunneling,

As Feynnam said, "An electron is a positron moving backward in time"

What's the probability of that?

Are you familiar with the Dirac Sea, Virtual Particles and Electron Holes.

Quick pop exercise. You have a random variable X with the outcome space $\{0,\,1\}$. The probability for X=1 is $10^{100}+1$ and the probability for X=0 is $-10^{100}$. What is the mean?
$$\langle X \rangle = 10^{100} +1 \gg 1$$
What is the variance?
$$Var(X)=-10^{200}-10^{100}<0$$
Negative variance!!!

You are mixing things here. The exercise you give is on classical probability, which cannot be negative or greater than one. Wigner function, on the other hand is not a classical probability density so it can behave in stranger ways. This is not a good example.
–
Ondřej ČernotíkOct 10 '12 at 15:48